179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← archive index

Re: [idm] Prefuse 73/Nick Drake & copyright

3 messages · 3 participants · spans 2 days · search this subject
◇ merged from 2 subjects: prefuse 73 tune in footlocker ad · prefuse 73/nick drake & copyright
2002-08-11 07:54reak what Re: [idm] Prefuse 73 Tune in Footlocker Ad
└─ 2002-08-12 23:42nethed Re: [idm] Prefuse 73/Nick Drake & copyright
└─ 2002-08-13 00:09henrik str.mberg Re: [idm] Prefuse 73/Nick Drake & copyright
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
2002-08-11 07:54reak what>From: String Theory <string@onshore.com> >To: "robert stanton" <industrialrobot@hotmail.c
From:
reak what
To:
Cc:
Date:
Sun, 11 Aug 2002 02:54:36 -0500
Subject:
Re: [idm] Prefuse 73 Tune in Footlocker Ad
permalink · <F226aa4mdcUTkTmz3tA00003196@hotmail.com>
quoted 99 lines From: String Theory <string@onshore.com>>From: String Theory <string@onshore.com> >To: "robert stanton" <industrialrobot@hotmail.com> >CC: idm@hyperreal.org >Subject: Re: [idm] Prefuse 73 Tune in Footlocker Ad >Date: 08 Aug 2002 23:51:51 -0500 > >"robert stanton" <industrialrobot@hotmail.com> writes: > > > Supporting any sort of modern advertising scheme is negative in my > > opinion. Even if you are "just making money to make more music" you > > are also promoting the system which allows you, as well as many more > > and less talented music-makers, to be bought and sold like commodities > > by corporations who treat other human beings as "consumers" and view > > advertising and profit as more important than future human potential, > > reform, and the environment. > >the music makers are not being bought and sold, what is being bought >and sold is a license to use a work of art in a short film or video >that at the very worst misleads people into thinking they need >something that they do not. since last i checked, nobody needs either >prefuse 73, the internet or even television, i don't think any harm is >being done. of *course* corporations treat human beings as >"consumers" ... those "consumers" treat the products that these >corporations spend their lifeblood creating and promoting as >"commodities" which they discard or ignore at their own whim. to >think that the poor unfortunate consumer gives up their free will by >watching an advertisement is to ignore the primary function of the >advertisement itself: to *persuade* other people to *choose* your >product. brand loyalty is a weak force at best, and a complete >fallacy 90% of the time. in today's climate of cynicism and suspicion >of any corporate entity larger than the corner mom-n-pop store, when >we have personal digital video recorders that automatically edit out >advertisements, i don't think the naive view of corporations as >mind-bending propaganda factories really holds up. really, i think >advertisements are in greater danger of becoming irrelevant than the >average television viewer is in danger of being influenced; the viewer >understands that the function of the advertisement is to sell >products, not to inform them. the only exceptions to this rule are >the young and the stupid. > > > To be so blatantly supportive of such activities seems rather naive. > >i think it's naive to simplify the relation between consumer and media >so much. it's a 2 way transaction these days. we're not living in >Marshall Mcluhan's universe anymore. The viewers have woken up to the >realization that they influence the media as much as the media >influences them. Think about how many Nielsen ratings and focus >groups and market profiles go into any decision made by any >corporation. I'm not saying that they are benevolent or even that >they are devoid of harm but if advertising was the worst evil >perpetuated by American corporations, we would be living in a beatiful >world. > >I think as long as long as an artist feels morally secure in licensing >a work to a corporation, then they have every right to do so. I would >certainly license a work of my own to many companies. There are also >many that I would not license to. There *is* a danger inherent in >selling ones' artwork to an advertiser, and that is the transfer of >perceived "ownership" of the music from the artist to the >corporation. Nick Drake's song "Pink Moon" will always be associated >with Volkswagen for an enormous number of people. But the flipside of >that transaction is that a significant percentage of the people who >bought a Nick Drake album within the last year did so because that was >the guy from the Volkswagen commercial. This is possibly not the best >example since Nick Drake is long dead and does not get to benefit from >the licensing of his music, but there are many other artists for whom >this dubious transaction is probably paying off nicely. I would guess >Dirty Vegas' cover of "Days Go By" would never have hit the Top 40 if >they hadn't licensed it to Mitsubishi. If they are happy with the >fact that their song invokes Mitsubishi's logo for the millions of >people dropping money on the single, well so am I. > >In most situations I think it's a beneficial transaction to all >parties involved. The artist gets a whole fuckload of cash which they >can then use to develop their art further, and the advertiser >purchases a couple of things: A catchy tune that the intended consumer >will associate with their product; and the "hipness" factor if they >choose the right track (Prefuse 73 fans probably have newfound >"respect" for Footlocker, as absurd as that is given that it's the ad >agency not the corporation that chooses the soundtrack). > > > If you are interested in these sorts of things, I would recommend > > reading Robert McChesney's "Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication > > Media in Dubious Times" for a much better perspective. > >I'll definitely look at this book ... as you can guess by the length >of my reply this is definitely a subject I'm interested in. > >Josh> > >-- >-- String Theory >-- http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi >-- String Theory's Anhedonia CD/LP available at finer music stores >worldwide > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
Spot fucking on, my friend. _J_ _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2002-08-12 23:42nethedagree with the statements about licensing but lost track who said what. i thought people w
From:
nethed
To:
Date:
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:42:23 +0100
Subject:
Re: [idm] Prefuse 73/Nick Drake & copyright
Reply to:
Re: [idm] Prefuse 73 Tune in Footlocker Ad
permalink · <p05010441b97df39d752b@[217.36.241.204]>
agree with the statements about licensing but lost track who said what. i thought people were buying nick drake records because his tracks are being used on some gawd awful Young Americans teen soap I caught on UK tv the other day. Fueled with angst the songs still captivate a mood. Not so sure how Nick's estate was set up due to the way he died etc but as i understand it copyright is life of the author plus 70 years which is how disney still has a copyright on Mickey Mouse. Everytime it comes up to a Walt Disney death anniversary and Mickey might come into public domain the Disney Corp goes into overdrive lobbying Congress & the rest of the world to extend the life of copyright.... at least that was one of the trivial things i learned in summer school at harvard. the original idea behind copyright was to give authors, composers etc a period of time in which they could do things like license it to pay for the labours of creating it. many artists (not all) take a point 2 position. you dont like volkswagen - dont license your music to them. i'm sure volkswagen had to get permission from the publisher and the label to use the track especially if this was an ad in the states & somewhere along the line a fee was paid - not to the drake family(altho you'd think they might get a royalty on airplay) you can be sure a label or a publisher were contacted, permission sought & granted with an exchange of paper - not only contracts but a check. _____________________ the music makers are not being bought and sold, what is being bought and sold is a license to use a work of art in a short film or video that at the very worst misleads people into thinking they need something that they do not. since last i checked, nobody needs either prefuse 73, the internet or even television, i don't think any harm is being done. ----------- I think as long as long as an artist feels morally secure in licensing a work to a corporation, then they have every right to do so. --------- Nick Drake's song "Pink Moon" will always be associated with Volkswagen for an enormous number of people. But the flipside of that transaction is that a significant percentage of the people who bought a Nick Drake album within the last year did so because that was the guy from the Volkswagen commercial. This is possibly not the best example since Nick Drake is long dead and does not get to benefit from the licensing of his music -- http://www.ninjatune.net/solidsteel New Archive of Solid Steel mixes http://www.bbc.co.uk/london Monday midnite>2am UK time live mixing --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2002-08-13 00:09henrik str.mbergAt 00.42 +0100 02-08-13, nethed wrote: >agree with the statements about licensing but lost
From:
henrik str.mberg
To:
nethed ,
Date:
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:09:48 +0200
Subject:
Re: [idm] Prefuse 73/Nick Drake & copyright
Reply to:
Re: [idm] Prefuse 73/Nick Drake & copyright
permalink · <p05111700b97dfdf5ad16@[217.215.62.172]>
At 00.42 +0100 02-08-13, nethed wrote:
quoted 1 line agree with the statements about licensing but lost track who said what.>agree with the statements about licensing but lost track who said what.
on a sort of related note - i was talking to si begg recently, and he said that ninja tune never clear any samples, last time he checked. cool. is this still true? hs -- the history of the 20th century clearly shows that the most popular and least effective way of getting a foreign people to change government is to throw explosives at them from the air. - carsten palmær --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org